As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Gallop's Appeal Dismissed

No particular surprise here, the appellate court found the case as nutty as the original judge:

We hold that the District Court did not err in concluding that Gallop’s claims were frivolous, and affirm the dismissal of her complaint. In addition, Gallop’s counsel are ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C. ' 1927, and the inherent power of this Court.

Better still, the court notes that the appeal itself was frivolous and threatens Gallop and her lawyers with having to pay the costs of defending against her suit:

Accordingly, Gallop and her counsel are hereby ordered to show cause in writing within thirty days from the date of entry of this order why they should not pay double costs and damages in the amount of $15,000, for which they would be jointly and severally liable, under Rule 38, 28 U.S.C. ' 1927, and the inherent power of this Court.

I like this background:

As the sentient world well recalls, on the morning of September 11, 2001, “agents of the al Qaeda terrorist organization hijacked commercial airplanes and attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and the national headquarters of the Department of Defense in Arlington, Virginia.”

As compared to the non-sentient world the Troofers inhabit.

Update: Forgot the hat tip to LashL, the JREF goddess of legal infotainment.

47 Comments:

The release of the 'official' birth certificate is the end of the birther movement for the sane community; this will likely push truthers further underground as well.There has been a healthy backlash lately against conspiracy theorists.

Responsible truthers take a dim view of these legal actions because in the past the suits filed, such as the Stanley Hilton suit and the Phil Berg suit (Berg later filed a birther suit) were so bad you had to wonder if it was their purpose to embarrass the truth movement.

I don't know what Bill Veale's intention was, but I had to expect that anything that had nutjobs like John Lear and Rob Balsamo involved was poorly thought out.

"I think the release of the long form birth certificate is an appeasement of conspiracy theorists, not a backlash against them."

Agreed.

It needs to be pointed out that the Birfers are already moving the goal-posts as they now are questioning Obama's college transcripts. Plus they are splintering into subgroups that still refuse to believe that this long form is the real deal.

The homosexual psychopath who sexually harassed both Willie the Rod and Carol Brouillet is now engaged in slandering a victim of his own sexual harassment without providing a scintilla of evidence to support his twisted, lying assertions.

You are the most disgusting, sick, twisted, homosexual psychopath I've ever encountered.

What next, goat fucker, will you murder your mother and stand before the judge and beg for leniency because you're an orphan?

Responsible truthers take a dim view of these legal actions because in the past the suits filed, such as the Stanley Hilton suit and the Phil Berg suit (Berg later filed a birther suit) were so bad you had to wonder if it was their purpose to embarrass the truth movement.

There are no responsible truthers, Brian. There are frauds like Richard Gage, anti-semitic loons like Kevin Barrett, and unemployed sex stalkers like you.

I've already proven why you're lying about the 424,000 tons of WTC concrete and the NRDC Report. The NRDC's Report was also cited by The RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence in a federal trial.

FAIL

That you continue to tell the same lies over-and-over-and-over again doesn't lend the force of credibility to your fallacious argument, and it never will. All you've managed to prove is that you're a typical troofer neo-Nazi who practices Hitler's Big LIE, or lie by repetition.

ButtGoo, the fact that you haven't a clue as to why the claim is absurd that 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd shows that you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

Yeah, I guess that explains why it's so easy to prove that you're wrong.

And yes, you are asking me to prove a negative. But then again, you can't pass a formal examination in elementary logic, which explains why your specious arguments are laughable to say nothing of the ease with which your arguments are discredited.

How is asking a simply yes-or-no question asking you to prove a negative? It's a simple question and you're afraid to answer: Do you know why the claim that all 424,00 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd?

You're afraid to answer because it shows that neither you nor anyone else here knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

If you're not outright lying, you misrepresent scientific data, misrepresent your opponenets argument, or resort to logical fallacies. And when caught red handed lying like a rug, you change the subject and lie again.

You are a psychopath. Seek psychiatric intervention--you creep.

NOW GET OUT OF HERE AND DON'T YOU DARE DARKEN THIS WEBSITE WITH YOUR PUTRID, LYING PRESENCE AGAIN--YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!

Even if I believed that lying in the service of a cause was justified (and I don't) I would eschew lying because it's not effective in the long run since it destroys credibility and only convinces the lazy and the stupid.

Do you or do you not know why the claim that all 424,00 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd?

TR, you definitely need to mock me because clearly you are all extremely ignorant about 9/11, you have no interest in learning about it, all you want to do is point and giggle at people who are trying to learn about it, and you can't refute me.

TR, you definitely need to mock me because clearly you are all extremely ignorant about 9/11, you have no interest in learning about it, all you want to do is point and giggle at people who are trying to learn about it, and you can't refute me.

False. We all understand what happened on 9/11. We mock you because you're a failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement and posts endless dumbspam here because this blog is the last chance you have to be taken seriously by anyone.

Wait, are you visually impaired, Brian? Is that why none of the evidence makes sense to you? You're blind, that has to be it.

424,000 tons of WTC was not pulverized. A simple review of the Google image page shows chunks of concrete of various sizes. A simple review also doesn't show any symetry that you like to assume. Some of the concrete was pulverized, and there is no mystery as to why that happened.

MGF, I know 424,000 tons of concrete was not pulverized. I have made a dozen posts in this forum pointing out that the very notion is ludicrous for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

GuitarBill has been offering the NRDC's (which he seemed to think was an "official" agency) claim of 424,000 tons as if it were authoritative. I have challenged him many times, asking if he knows why the claim is ridiculous. He's afraid to answer yes or no.

And you know this how? If you studied the writings and legal briefs of Phil Berg and Stanley Hilton before they filed their 9/11 lawsuits and showed that they have always been incompetent, irrational, and illiterate you might have a case.

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio lies, "...GuitarBill has been offering the NRDC's (which he seemed to think was an "official" agency) claim of 424,000 tons as if it were authoritative. I have challenged him many times, asking if he knows why the claim is ridiculous. He's afraid to answer yes or no."

Logical fallacy: Prove a negative.

And telling half-truths, too, cretin?

I'm not afraid to answer any question. As always, you're a shameless liar. I answered your question, you ignored the answer and continued your never ending lie fest.

The 424,000 ton figure is derived from the destruction of ALL THE BUILDINGS THAT SUFFERED DAMAGE ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001, not just WTC 1, 2 and 7. You pretend that no damage occurred to the remainder of the World Trade Center, which is a bald-faced lie.

Furthermore, the NRDC's figures were cited by the RJ Lee Report and were used in a federal trial as evidence. You have never proven the figures are in error.

Thus, once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

NOW GET OUT OF HERE AND DON'T YOU DARE DARKEN THIS WEBSITE WITH YOUR PUTRID, LYING PRESENCE AGAIN--YOU PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!

UtterFail, I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking you a simple yes/no question. Do you or do you not know why the NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized is absurd?Clearly you do not know, so why don't you just admit the obvious?

You could argue that the question assumes facts not in evidence, but then you'd have to show that the claim is not absurd--and you'll be refuted if you try.

I haven't pretended anything. I am far more conversant on the specifics of the damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 than you are.

I haven't proven that the NRDC's 424,000 ton pulverization figure is in error because it suits me better to point out that nobody at this forum (except me) knows enough about the WTC to know why it's in error. And apparently none of you nimrods are curious enough to find out.